Mediaboss Marketing

By Laurie Chapman

April 3, 2017

Like the First Amendment, there is substantial information packed into the Fifth Amendment. In this section, our founding fathers have addressed issues such as double jeopardy, due process and eminent domain. It also provides citizens the right to remain silent, or not implicate themselves.

The following is a transcription of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution in its original form.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The first part of this amendment addresses the right of a citizen charged with a capital crime to be presented before a grand jury. Typically, most states satisfy this requirement through preliminary hearings. The one exception, outlined in this amendment, is specific circumstances relating to the military.

The Fifth Amendment also precludes citizens from being subject to double jeopardy. No individual may be tried for the same crime twice. Additionally, a citizen cannot be compelled to implicate themselves in the court of law. This is commonly referred to as pleading the fifth, where a defendant or witness invokes the right to remain silent.

In Miranda vs Arizona, 1966, the court expanded on the right to remain silent as presented in the Fifth. The court held that all individuals must be advised of their right to remain silent and to an attorney. If an individual is in police custody and being interrogated, failure to advise the individual of their rights makes their statements inadmissible in court.

Also relating to the court of law, the Fifth guarantees a fair, orderly and just trial. As with the wording for double jeopardy, the Fifth Amendment only applies to the federal government. However, the text of the 14th Amendment applies both issues to states as well.

Finally, the Fifth Amendment addresses eminent domain. This states the federal government may not take personal property for public use without just compensation. In Chicago, B. & Q. Railroad Co. vs. Chicago, 1897, the court held the 14th Amendment also extended in this arena to the states.

Determining just compensation typically entails assessing the propertys fair market value. The piece of this section that has been troublesome relates to the intended use of the property.

A controversial opinion was issued by the U.S. Supreme Court that allowed private property to be seized for private commercial development. Justice John Paul Stevens issued the 5-4 decision in Kelo vs. City of New London, 2005.

The courts opinion stated:

The takings at issue here would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals, Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as public purpose. In a nutshell, the court agreed that allowing the city to take ownership of a condemned property with the intention of economically revitalizing it would benefit the public. While the space might be directly privatized, the public as a whole benefits from an approved, productive space. Idaho certainly has its share of public lands, and I wouldnt be surprised to see this amendment raised in future suits relating to land usage.

Laurie Chapman publishes Political Broad bi-monthly and takes an informative, opinionated peek at the functions of government. If you have a suggestion for the author, e-mail her atlchapman@idahocountyfreepress.com or call her at 208-983-1200.

Read the original:
Fifth Amendment preserves our right to due process, and more - Idaho County Free Press (blog)

Last week, Judge Nathan dismissed a challenge by a group of yellow taxi medallion owners to New York Citys regulatory treatment of Uber and similar ride-hailing services. The plaintiffs alleged that the decision to exempt Uber and its drivers from the requirements imposed on yellow cabs constituted a regulatory taking under the Fifth Amendment and violated the Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection Clause (see our previous coverage here). Judge Nathan rejected the takings claim as untimely, noting that New York State provided a mechanism for seeking just compensation for a taking, but plaintiffs had not attempted to avail themselves of it.

In response to the plaintiffs equal protection claim, Judge Nathan reasoned that the city was justified in separate regulatory regimes for yellow cabs and Uber:

The Citys for-hire ground transportation industry like its analogues in other parts of the country and the world may well, as Plaintiffs allege, be rapidly evolving. And a notable feature of that evolution may indeed be that the Ubers and Lyfts of the world increasingly share important characteristics with traditional medallion taxicabs, including, as identified by Plaintiffs, the customers they serve, the drivers they employ, the manner in which they transact sales, and even the immediacy with which their services are delivered. But marshaling such similarities risks obscuring persistent (and undisputed) differences in the manner in which these industry participants interact with and relate to their consumers. One set responds, by virtue of a government-created monopoly, to spontaneous street hails by people with whom they have no preexisting contractual relationship and the pickup takes place with no information (for example, names, vehicle type) having yet been formally exchanged. The other responds, pursuant to a preexisting company-customer contract, to remotely transmitted electronic hails and the pick-up takes place following at least a minimal exchange of information. Such differences, easily justify Defendants decision to subject these participants to differential regulatory treatment on the basis of legitimate government policy to serve the sorts of interests discussed above. Under the deferential standards of rational basis review, nothing more is required for the challenged regulations to survive.

Here is the original post:
Judge Nathan Tosses Yellow Cabs' Fifth Amendment Takings Claim Over Uber Regulatory Treatment - Lexology (registration)

Waymo, the self-driving vehicle business spun out of Googles parent company a year ago, asked a federal court on March 10, 2017 to block Ubers work on a competing self-driving truck that Waymo claimed could be using stolen technology.

Google's Waymo accused Uber of stealing documents that described critical self-driving auto technology, with former top Waymo engineer Anthony Levandowski being at the center of the case. Uber's lawyers argue that the company does not have the documents Levandowski is accused of stealing from Waymo, therefore it can not hand them over in the scheduled document production. He did so to avoid turning over documents in the Waymo v. Uber trade-secret litigation.

Speaking to The New York Times, the lawyers for Anthony Levandowski say that he will exercise his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination due to the potential of criminal action in the case.

Anthony Levandowski, the head of Uber's self-driving auto project, took the extraordinary step during a closed court hearing on Wednesday.

The case is expected to be a high-profile fight that pits two of the biggest companies involved in trying to put autonomous cars on the road-unless Uber succeeds in moving things out of the public eye and in to arbitration.

Uber has asked the court to stay Waymo's trade secret and unfair competition claims if it decides they have to be settled by arbitration, but should let the remaining claims such as the patent infringement charges proceed in the court.

For the time being, Levandowski's lawyers said that they're "broadly asserting" his Fifth Amendment rights to "any documents he may possess and control" that are relevant.

The Times cites court transcripts from a Thursday hearing, which include Levandowski's lawyers invoking the amendment in what appears to be a precaution related to document release.

Waymo accuses Levandowski of downloading "over 14,000 highly confidential and proprietary design files for Waymo's various hardware systems" roughly six weeks prior to resigning from the company. But what's unusual is that it's only seeking to move the trade secrets and unfair competition claims, both of which it claims are meritless. The company last week filed a motion to request that the disputes around trade secrets be resolved in private arbitration instead of a public court.

The said arbitration process accused him of leaving the company with a full load of confidential information, which was later used to poach other employees from Waymo.

The allegations Waymo made against Levandowski and Uber in the lawsuit remain unproven.

"You don't get many cases where there is pretty direct proof that somebody downloaded 14,000 documents, and then left the next day", Alsup said at a March 16 hearing.

"There's going to be a lot of adverse headlines in this case on both sides", Judge Alsup said.

"We look forward to our first public response laying out our case on Friday, 7 April", Angela Padilla, Uber's associate general counsel, said in a statement.

Read this article:
Uber's Anthony Levandowsky invokes Fifth Amendment rights - AppsforPCdaily

File this under things that are too strange to be fiction. Nobody could make this stuff up! Anthony Levandowski used to work for Waymo, the self driving division of Alphabet, which most of us know as Google. In early 2016, he left Waymo and started his own business called Otto that specialized in creating self driving systems for large trucks. Last year, Uber bought Otto for $500 million. (One presumes that Otto is a play on the word auto, no doubt suggested by a certain famous scene in the movie Airplane!)

It took Waymo 7 years to develop its self driving car technology. Uber is now testing self driving technology that it developed in 7 months. Prior to leaving Waymo, Levandowski downloaded over 14,000proprietary and confidential files from the Waymo server, including the design for a Lidar circuit board. Waymo knew nothing about any of this until a supplier working with Otto accidentally included Waymo in an e-mail.

Once alerted, Waymo filed suit asking for an injunction against Uber using any of the information it obtained from Levandowski via its acquisition of Otto. The complaint alleges,Fair competition spurs new technical innovation, but what has happened here is not fair competition. Instead, Otto and Uber have taken Waymos intellectual property so that they could avoid incurring the risk, time, and expense of independently developing their own technology.

These are very serious allegations, if true, said Tyler Ochoa, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law. The trade secret case by itself is a blockbuster. Its hard to believe theyd put those accusations into print unless they had evidence, Ochoatold Bloomberg.

This week, Levandowskis attorney, Miles Ehrlich, informedU.S. District Court Judge William Alsup that his client intends to exercise his right against self incrimination based on the potential for criminal action if called to testify in Waymos case against Uber. Attorneys for Uber told the court that Levandowski has a good story to tell and that if he testifies, his testimony would make it clear that Uber is not taking advantage of any of the information he downloaded from Waymo on the way out the door.

That would be a legitimate point, said the judge. Maybe you can convince me of that. But first, Levandowski has to agree to testify.Im sorry that Mr. Levandowski has got his got himself in a fix. Thats what happens, I guess, when you download 14,000 documents and take them, if he did. But I dont hear anybody denying that, Alsup said.

Then the judge warned Ubers attorney,If you think for a moment that Im going to stay my hand because your guy is taking the Fifth Amendment and not issue a preliminary injunction to shut down that youre wrong, according to a report by Autoblog.The court is considering a temporary restraining order against Uber and has set May 3 as the date when it will hear arguments for a permanent injunction.

Obviously, Waymos allegations are not evidence. But the timing of Levandowskis departure from Waymo and Ubers success with its autonomous driving cars is, as they say, curious. It will be interesting to see if Ubers Nothing to see here. Move along strategy convinces the judge not to issue a temporary restraining order.

Tags: Anthony Levandowski, Otto self driving trucks, Uber autonomous car testing, Waymo suit against Uber

Steve Hanley I have been a car nut since the days when Rob Walker and Henry N. Manney, III graced the pages of Road & Track. Today, I use my trusty Miata for TSD rallies and occasional track days at Lime Rock and Watkins Glen. If it moves on wheels, I'm interested in it. Please follow me on Google + and Twitter.

More:
ADVERTISE WITH GAS2 - Gas 2.0

BGR

Morning Agenda: Uber Executive Invokes Fifth Amendment New York Times Anthony Levandowski, the head of Uber's self-driving unit who is accused of stealing technology from his former employer Google, is citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, according to his lawyers. Why? Because there is potential ... Uber exec invokes the Fifth Amendment in Google patent squabbleBGR Uber's Anthony Levandowski invokes Fifth Amendment rights in Waymo suitTechCrunch Uber exec asserts Fifth Amendment rights in Waymo lawsuitLeftLane News The Tech Portal -Ars Technica -Forbes -New York Times all 77 news articles »

View original post here:
Morning Agenda: Uber Executive Invokes Fifth Amendment - New York Times